What did the prosecutor say in closing arguments in the John Rowland case?

NEW HAVEN – John G. Rowland's prosecutors argued Thursday that the former three-term governor has struck at one of the underpinnings of free and fair elections and they urged jurors who have watched and listened through two weeks of trial to find him guilty.

"This is a case that goes to the very heart of the most basic right we have in America," federal prosecutor Christopher Mattei said, arguing the government's summation. "The right to vote, the right to make informed decisions about who is going to represent us.

"Every American is entitled to certain information," Mattei said. "Who's paying a candidate, who is the candidate beholden to?

"And in back-to-back election cycles in 2010 and 2012," Mattei argued, "Mr. Rowland sought to deprive voters of that information. He was going to be paid to steer that candidate right into the United States government and he didn't want anyone to know it."

Mattei and the government were first to deliver closing arguments to the jury, after evidence concluded a day earlier in Rowland's 11-day trial. He is accused of conspiring to violate and obstruct federal campaign reporting laws by concealing his role as a paid consultant in one congressional campaign and trying to obtain a secret, paid position advising another.

Rowland's lead defense, lawyer Reid Weingarten, devoted much of his 90-minute summation to chipping away at nine days of government evidence. As he concluded, he stopped just short of presenting Rowland as a victim.

"What this case is about is two really, really, really wealthy people who wanted to buy congressional seats, one for himself and one for his wife," Weingarten said.

Weingarten said Mark Greenberg, the well-to-do real estate investor running for Congress on his own, misrepresented a consulting proposal Rowland made to him for political reasons.

After being indicted Thursday on conspiracy and other charges associated with two federal election campaigns, former Gov. John G. Rowland appeared in court.

Brian Foley, the owner of a nursing home chain who was supporting the campaign by his wife, Lisa Wilson-Foley, misrepresented the consulting agreement he approved and signed with Rowland in a cynical – and successful – attempt to win leniency for himself for criminal behavior of his own that could have sent him to prison for 40 years, Weingarten said.

"He is massively, massively exposed," Weingarten said of Foley. "So he does, not a 180, but he tweaks the relationship with John. He creates this 'unspoken agreement' with John."

Weingarten said Rowland in both cases was simply trying to recover financially after his 2004 bribery conviction forced him from office, cutting short his rise as a national Republican figure and landing him in prison for 10 months.

"What John was doing was not ignoble," Weingarten said. "It was John trying to work and that's not a crime. Justice will come in this case when you return a verdict of not guilty."

It was a day of long speeches to a crowded room. The courtroom's hard wooden benches were packed with spectators, including a dozen or more of the former governor's friends and family. Late arrivals stood, straining to hear in a small lobby at the rear of the courtroom.

U.S. District Judge Janet Bond Arterton started things off just after 9:30 a.m. with two hours of instructions to the jury on how to apply the evidence to the conspiracy and other charges pending against Rowland in a seven-count indictment. He is accused of five felonies and two misdemeanors and, because of the prior conviction, could face a substantial sentence in prison if convicted of everything.

Mattei argued in his summation for an hour and fifteen minutes. Weingarten went for 90 minutes. Mattie had 15 minutes for rebuttal. Then Arterton delivered more instructions. At midafternoon, four alternate jurors were excused and the remaining 12 retired to a deliberation room to choose a foreman and begin considering Rowland's future.

The jury went home at 5 p.m. without a verdict.

When they weren't arguing the broad points of Rowland's guilt or innocence, lawyers chipped away at one another's case and tried to convince the jury that theirs was the correct interpretation of the evidence. The overwhelming majority of that evidence is email correspondence and contracts between Rowland and Greenberg, Rowland and Apple, and Rowland and staffers on the Wilson-Foley campaign

The government accuses Rowland of drafting a phony contract with Greenberg's 2010 campaign for Congress in the state's 5th District. Rowland is accused of trying to conceal his role by asking Greenberg to pay him through a nonprofit animal shelter. Greenberg rejected the offer – in part because Rowland wanted nearly $800,000 over more than two years.

Two years later, when Wilson-Foley ran for the same seat, Foley testified that he offered Rowland a similar deal for $5,000. Rowland would be paid as a nursing home consultant while working for the Wilson-Foley campaign.

Weingarten argued Thursday that Rowland's contract with Greenberg would have been legal, if it had been signed, because it authorized Rowland to consult for Greenberg in an array of business, charitable and political areas.

In the case of the Wilson-Foley campaign, and Foley's Apple Rehab nursing home chain, Weingarten held steadfastly to the position that Rowland provided valuable paid work for Apple and volunteered equally valuable service to the campaign.

For months, Foley defended the Rowland's contract with Apple as valid, saying the former governor provided substantial advice to the nursing home chain. But earlier this year, Foley changed his position after agreeing to take a relatively lenient plea bargain agreement with the government in return for cooperating with authorities.

Weingarten argued Thursday that Foley falsely accused Rowland in order to obtain forgiveness from potential obstruction of justice charges he faced and a long list of potential campaign fundraising violations by him and members of his family.

The defense and government disagreed on all points, including why Rowland tried to keep his consulting agreement with Foley a secret.

Rowland had to keep his political work secret, Mattei said, because the bribery conviction that forced him from office in 2004 and later resulted in his imprisonment made him politically toxic. Any candidates who hired him and publicly reported his salary on reports to the Federal Election Commission could expect to have their judgment questioned.

Mattei said Rowland's most valuable and salable skills were his enormous political skill, his strategic political vision and his intimate knowledge of the state's 5th Congressional District, where both Greenberg and Wilson-Foley ran. But Rowland knew he could tank any candidate who hired him.

"What candidate would want to associate with him in a paid way when they are going out and asking the public to trust them?" Mattei said.

The prosecutor then quoted Wilson-Foley's first campaign manager, who said she was incredulous in 2011 when she learned the candidate was thinking of bringing Rowland aboard.

Tiffany Grossman had testified that she told Wilson-Foley that hiring Rowland was like "handing your opponent a loaded gun and saying shoot me."

But Weingarten argued that there were other reasons for secrecy.

In some cases, he said, Rowland's notoriety would have been a distraction.

"This is the Rowland effect," he said. "He wasn't the 800-pound gorilla. He was the 8,000-pound gorilla."

Weingarten said Rowland was "helping Apple not get messed up with the Malloy administration."